Post navigation

When the SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) became separated from the Post Conciliar Church, it was a scandal that has continued to reverberate until today. In one sense I understand the excommunication because of the illicit installation and consecration of new bishops without papal approval. On the other hand I have much sympathy for the position of the group as a whole. The excommunication has been lifted by the Pope recently as a peace offering for a possible resolution to this schism.

The Second Vatican Council was a pastoral council that evaluated where the Church wanted to go from here, the plans and practices that would be applied to get us there etc. It did not issue any new teaching on faith or morals; that is they did not add to or subtract from the de fide teachings of Catholicism.

The Council was extremely divided with Cardinal Ottaviani, Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and many supporters who were appalled at some of the changes being proposed as well as the inclusion of non-Catholic (Protestant) advisors invited to make suggestions. At one point Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani muttered to Giovanni Battista Cardinal Montini (later Pope Paul VI): “I pray to God that I may die before the end of the Council—in that way I can die a Catholic.” The seriousness of their disagreements is obvious from the above quote.

On the other side of the aisle we had figures like Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and others, often accused of being modernists (a named Heresy of the Faith) who fought for more radical and novel changes. As things ended up, this group won out in much of what was proposed, though the Holy Spirit did preserve the teachings of our de fide teachings. The documents themselves must be read as orthodox suggestions for improving how the Church might go forth in the modern world and be more relevant in the rapid changes taking place. Therefore a right sense of the documents is entirely dependent on the reader to interpret these documents according to our tradition and the defined truths of the Church. After all, there was a time when the Church was the biggest influence on world culture and the tables began to be reversed where modern secular thought was and still is, to a great degree, a major influence upon the Church. We had lost the first skirmishes for the moral development of our changing societies. A New Evangelization will obviously be needed if we are to win the war.

A new Mass was introduced to the Council by Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the Mass, who remains a very controversial figure to this day. He was later accused of being a Freemason though definitive proof was never released by the Church. Pope Paul the VI effectively put him in exile for his final years by giving him a post in Iran. However, this Novus Ordo Mass is now the preferred Mass of the Church.

The introduction of this Mass to the world caused many priests and religious to leave the Church as well as many ordinary, obedient Catholics who found the changes unbearable (an estimated 6 million in the U.S. in total). Nuns and priests began removing their habits and clerical clothing and dressing as ordinary laymen. It was at this time that Bishop Marcel Lefebvre began his journey that eventually got him and his group of followers excommunicated from the Church.

It is true that the modernists and progressives of the Church, used the argument “in the Spirit of Vatican II” to introduce far more changes to the Mass than what was originally intended. Abuses of the GIRM (General Instruction for the Roman Missal) were rampant. To this day we still see the footprints of their “novel” ideas all over most celebrations of the Novus Ordo Mass. I only bring this up to set-up the confusion among the faithful and what all of this uncertainty conjures up in the minds of us who have watched this storm approach and then engulf us from the close of the Council. Some being witnesses, as it were, to the chaos which, though greatly diminished, exists right through to our day. Some valiant attempts are being made to right the situations and our last 2 Popes have been steadfast captains of the Bark of Peter during this turbulent storm.

Back now to the dilemma in evaluating the situation with the SSPX:

So here’s the dilemma many ordinary people have when they look at the fruits of the New Mass and the Post Conciliar Church as opposed to that of the flock of the SSPX: Note I speak of the flock because we are now into the second generation of SSPX leadership. I am more interested in looking at their practice and culture and comparing them to the flock that have remained in the Bark of Peter as they ought.

On one hand those who stayed within the Post Conciliar Church abiding by all the changes were faced with a diminishing clergy, religious, and laity who have become extremely lax; some were simply being obedient to any and all changes, good or bad (novelty or not), when they were introduced by their parish priests. By 1992 only 30% of the Novus Ordo laity believed in transubstantiation. See my footnote on a recent post, here.

On the other hand, the SSPX, who were now in schism with the Church, has gained priests and religious, have been schooled in solid theology and their laity hold steadfast to all the de fide teachings of the Church. Their laity, in unison, would respond almost 100% in affirming the Catholic doctrine on transubstantiation. In this manner, one cannot equate their schism as being anything like that of Martin Luther whose Protestant heresy created a brand new religion with new teachings: rejecting nearly all of our de fide teachings.

By contrast, the SSPX looks and feels more like a small Catholic island community that was cut off from the rest of Catholicism for these past 47 years.

So for their acts of disobedience and rejection of new Catholic practices (which they felt undermined the de fide teachings of the Church), the SSPX is still viewed with great disdain among many of today’s Catholics and Catholic clergy. However, it sometimes appears ironic to anyone who might compare their acts of disobedience to the disobedience of many within the Novus Ordo, Post Conciliar Church who remain ‘Catholics in good standing.’

To this point, think of the scandalous behavior of some of our priests and Bishops in the abuse scandals; some of whom are still operating without sanction. Think of the influx of wild eyed theologians and scripture scholars who plagued us with their novel ideas, such as, Christ was not resurrected but his bones were eaten by dogs, or that Christ did not say most of things attributed to Him in scripture. They still wear their Roman collars and are interviewed on television as Catholic experts. Think of some of the most influential public political figures such as Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden who scandalously receive Holy Communion while fighting tooth and nail to promote abortion at every chance they get. They too are considered by Washington’s Cardinal Wuerl (an otherwise very traditional Bishop in America) as ‘Catholics in good standing;’ worthy to receive the Eucharist even though they bring unprecedented scandal on the Church. The consequence of his failure to deny or better yet excommunicate them tells the faithful layman that they need not agree with any de fide teaching of the Church which they might disagree with; after all, the prelates will surely give them a ‘wink and a nod’ and allow them to continue to scandalize the remaining faithful.

With this going on, is there any wonder that the laity of the Novus Ordo Church defies the Church teachings on contraception in overwhelmingly large numbers? Many have been led into apostasy or even heresy yet nothing is done. Do those in the SSPX churches act the same? It is doubtful from those whom I have met, though there is no poll that I have found to prove it.

In the same vein, the members of the Novus Ordo Church voted overwhelmingly in the last election for an avowed Socialist and the most pro-abortion presidential candidate this country has ever known. Again, I have no way to prove it, but I would say that the well educated laity of the SSPX church knows the Catholic teachings concerning socialism and abortion. The Church has repeatedly decried socialist forms of government and has spent an enormous amount of energy explaining the seriousness of the sin of abortion. John Paul II made it clear that to vote for a pro-abortion candidate was morally wrong when and if there is a pro-life candidate that could be voted for. I would wager than the SSPX members voted more in line with our Pope’s wishes than did the ‘Catholics in good standing.’

So we have the SSPX schismatic Church doing things and living in ways that we only wish our Post Conciliar Church would mimic. Meanwhile, we have a post conciliar Church getting involved in scandal almost everywhere we look. The latest being the LCWR scandal of the modernist nuns. I guess the Vatican has finally decided to discipline or sanction them.

The obvious questions for those of us who are still faithful to the Magisterium are: Why did it take so long to look into these modernist nuns? Why didn’t the Superiors of the various Orders stop this from happening? And why didn’t the Bishops of the diocese’s put an end to such behavior before now? Who is funding them? After all this is not a new problem; it has been going on for nearly 40 years now. Where have they been?

But we constantly lay blame on the SSPX (rightly so for their disobedience to the Pope). However, their followers are among the most faithful Catholics we have seen when it comes to abiding by the dogmatic teachings of the Church and avoiding doctrinal scandal. It is almost bazaar in its very nature. On one hand we have a schismatic group living the Catholic life and on the other we have the official Catholic flock that is rife with people who are living in apostasy. The choice is not that enticing.

Some hate the idea of the SSPX and are angry that the Pope wants to have them reconcile with the Church. Yet they could teach the rest of us what a truly Holy Mass looks like: something the Novus Ordo can do with much effort but still has a very hard time imitating. The SSPX can also teach us how to catechize our flock; something the Novus Ordo church is struggling with and must succeed in doing if we are ever going to reach our goals of a New Evangelization.

I think Pope Benedict the XVI knows that the reform of the reform which he desires is absolutely necessary. I also think that he is aware that he will need the help from the religious fraternities like the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter) and the SSPX in order to bring this revitalization about. These 2 groups are both very strong in the area of faithful adherence to the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

Therefore, I think we, as laymen, must keep an open mind about this era of our Catholic history. We are far too much invested in the present turmoil to be very good judges of this moment in time. It is impossible to escape our turbulent time in order to examine the outcome from afar without emotional, intellectual and doctrinal prejudice. What the future holds for the Church and the schismatic SSPX will just have to work itself out by the leaders of the SSPX and the Church.

For myself, I am going to leave this dilemma to Christ and His Holy Church and to the movement of His Holy Spirit. I have faith that our Holy Father and the Magisterium will, in the end, set the Bark of Peter aright.

My opinion again is that the rest of us need to take a deep breath and say, ‘from my perspective I admit that I am very short sighted.” Some may think me a rebel in taking a neutral stance but I refuse to take sides in this one though I will always defend defined teachings and reverent Masses.

I am personally praying for reunification and a real renewal of the Church; not more scandal and abuse like we’ve seen during these past 47 years. I pray for our Pope and His intentions and the revitalization of Holy Mother Church.

There are many of you who might disagree with me on the best way to renew the Church. I would love to know where you stand on these issues and how you might view the present dilemma with the SSPX.

Post navigation

22 Replies to “The SSPX Riddle”

Is the current Mass valid? Did people leave because the Mass changed or because the attitudes in society changed? If people leave the Church Christ established because of changes in the Mass, why did they come in the first place? Was it the Mass or the presence of Christ?

I think that was at the crux of their heartbreak when their familiar reverent worship was denied them. Many wondered if the New Mass was valid or not. For those that decided it wasn’t they left to go to the SSPX or other groups. For those who thought that the Church was now without a Pope, the Sedavacantist, they left in their groups. For those that feared that the Gates of Hell had prevailed over the Church, they left religion altogether. It was a sad and confused time and it broke many a heart and many a spirit.

I can’t do the podcast until tonight but will reveal my feelings in it. Heartbreak, true heartbreak, is deciding to avoid Christ. The new Mass is valid according to Rome as is TLM. But I’ll have more on it later.

I think you are not giving the proper respect to those previously faithful Catholics, uneducated except by their catechisms and they did not want to read theological debates or get into fights. Many held the same faith they had before the confusion arrived in their worship, they just decided that the confusion disturbed their souls. They loved Christ as much as any man, they retired into their homes to pray there and say their rosaries. Most of these individuals have now passed. Many of them came back into the Church if they lived long enough, largely due to the hard work that John Paul II did to stop the foolishness that was rampant. When you see Christ disrespected in the Eucharist, leaving is not the worst choice.

I disagree profoundly that I am not being respectful. One cannot talk about any of this if emotion is going to cloud the discussion. Leaving Christ, we are told by Christ and the Saints, is never an option. Addressing the abuses in the Liturgy is a different matter altogether.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. We must stay in it at all costs to purify it, to make it what He intended, not what we want it to be personally.

Their emotion is the same as yours, prompted by a deep residing love of Chirst. Yes, Christ is the Mystical Body and yes, Christ is the Eucharist. If you saw Christ being treated disrespectfully in either instance, your emotion may prompt you to flee as well (perhaps not from the Faith or the Mystical Body), but at least from the local parish where you found your Beloved so maligned by both the priest and your fellow Catholics. You may think that you were witnessing a parish that had been infiltrated by Satan Himself and transformed into something you could not recognize. You wouldn’t walk from the parish you would run. Remember, we are not talking about the mild disrespect we see in todays Masses that you are familiar with but abuses that none save perhaps the woman in the Video at Fr. Z’s site who addressed the LCWR at their convention could find any validity in. I have my doubts that I could remain in my seat in such a circumstance: priests dressed in clown outfits saying Mass with vestal virgins swishing about in provacative ways, sometimes not even using the words of consecration as written or using invalid matter for the Eucharist. All of this was happening in certain parishes. Were those valid masses? No. Would I continue to go to an invalid Mass? No. If I could not find a valid Mass to attend then I would not attend but tend to my soul by spiritual communion, even if only watching it on EWTN. It is what many of our seniors ended up doing. Thank God for EWTN because in the beginning that wasn’t even available to them. They went to an invalid Mass or they could not go to Mass if they were old and lived in some small rural town many miles from the next closest parish. Even then, they would have no assurance that this wasn’t going on there as well.

This is a difficult subject. I am really only familiar with the post Vatican II church. Some things that were changed I am aware of, but many others, as I have no experience, are factors I wasn’t knowledgeable of until reading some of your material as well as reading and hearing comments from others.

It does sadden me when breaks like this happen. I think far better to stay in the Church and be part of the purifying fire burning away heretical ideas and practices. However, that’s easier said than done. Situations like this don’t have easy solutions or answers.

I can totally agree with your assessment from the reference point of history that you and most people of our day have. In fact, it is a heavenly sign, that many faithful Catholics have been cropping up despite all the former confusion. Even though I am old enough to remember it all, I was not invested emotionally or spiritually in the Church until a mere 20 years ago. So my only personal references are my late pastors and my wife’s parents who struggled mightily with the changes and the confusion. In their mind, they were witnessing a reenactment of the agony of Christ and the material crucifixion of our Lord (not just the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass). It tore the heart right out of them. These are interesting things to ponder, I think, as we try to rebuild the Church into something more beautiful for our posterity.

I don’t have any argument with an individual choosing to stay away from Mass due to age or infirmity. Nor should anyone stand by whilst liturgical abuses take place. But we are told again and again by the Saints and by Christ that the Cross is not easy. If I walked in to my parish, or yours, and found it to be infiltrated by those who do not worship God I would sound the alarm until I was silenced. That isn’t theological, combative or mean. It is simply what we are called to do. Or else Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Saints are mere words.

As for the SSPX I addressed it in the podcast. They have positive aspects but it is past the time for a return to the Church.

Fighting with clergy or other parishioners is not a very rewarding or efficacious endeavor. I tried that once when I was full of vim and vigor. Talks with priests, letters to diocesan papers and such. We must remember that those who fought and won the battles within the Church in the past such as Athanasius, Catherine of Sienna, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila were in positions where they could do so. Very few laymen can effect change in the way they did: reforming their orders, facing down Arianism or convincing a Pope and His Magisterium that they needed to return to Rome. Maybe you’d be able to do that and maybe you would have the stamina and not injure your faith by such a fight: but I know that it can be detrimental to one’s spiritual life to be involved in such battles unless you are an exceedingly extraordinary individual.

As for it being past the time for the SSPX to return: we can’t possibly know that. Both the Vatican and the SSPX leadership are split over the issue. So it may not (as you mentioned in your podcast) be in God’s time yet. Will it happen? I don’t know that either; because I don’t know the will of God in this regard. If He wills it, it will happen in His own way and in His own time. That’s why I state that my position is now neutral in the matter: leaving it up to the Pope and to God to put it back together again.

I don’t have any argument with an individual choosing to stay away from Mass due to age or infirmity. Nor should anyone stand by whilst liturgical abuses take place. But we are told again and again by the Saints and by Christ that the Cross is not easy. If I walked in to my parish, or yours, and found it to be infiltrated by those who do not worship God I would sound the alarm until I was silenced. That isn’t theological, combative or mean. It is simply what we are called to do. Or else Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Saints are mere words.

As for the SSPX I addressed it in the podcast. They have positive aspects but it is past the time for a return to the Church.

Fighting with clergy or other parishioners is not a very rewarding or efficacious endeavor. I tried that once when I was full of vim and vigor. Talks with priests, letters to diocesan papers and such. We must remember that those who fought and won the battles within the Church in the past such as Athanasius, Catherine of Sienna, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila were in positions where they could do so. Very few laymen can effect change in the way they did: reforming their orders, facing down Arianism or convincing a Pope and His Magisterium that they needed to return to Rome. Maybe you’d be able to do that and maybe you would have the stamina and not injure your faith by such a fight: but I know that it can be detrimental to one’s spiritual life to be involved in such battles unless you are an exceedingly extraordinary individual.

As for it being past the time for the SSPX to return: we can’t possibly know that. Both the Vatican and the SSPX leadership are split over the issue. So it may not (as you mentioned in your podcast) be in God’s time yet. Will it happen? I don’t know that either; because I don’t know the will of God in this regard. If He wills it, it will happen in His own way and in His own time. That’s why I state that my position is now neutral in the matter: leaving it up to the Pope and to God to put it back together again.

So then what would you do or what would you instruct the faithful to do? Would it be to walk away from the Church Christ established or seek to combat the issues, whether mere laity or other role? Because the Church is still standing with many members from the Vatican II years. Again, I am not speaking of individuals but rather the whole?

As for the Saints, they did not know they were Saints at the time but merely Disciples of Christ. What is your advice to our future Saints?

I can only answer for myself and not for another. I fight in the only ways I know how: teaching and through apologetics. For others they will have to be guided by Christ to whatever role they need to play. For the saints, no one needed advise them, nor should anyone try: they had Christ’s ear and they were guided to do what they needed to do. I know that I don’t fit in that mould. So I content myself in simply teaching the faith as it was taught to me by two very good and very faithful Catholics who are probably helping us immensely from their prayers on high.

Many of the Saints had spiritual directors who did advise them. It would be interesting to find out what they were told in the midst of combatting heresy. Further, many fought against heresy from the pews, unknown as heroic people who fought for their faith.

I personally would love a reconciliation with the Universal Church. You said you’ve only been serving the Church for 20 years… I’ve only been alive for about that long! As a young man growing up during the peak of the exploitations of the post-Concilliar changes, simply entering a traditional Latin service with a tradition Catholic community a year or so ago made me realize what this once foreign group was unhappy with all along. And I heartily agree, if there is a group that most faithfully accepts the doctrines and liturgical practices of the Church, it generally is the traditional Catholics, including the SSPX.

Whatever happens, I pray that Our Blessed Lord shows us His Mercy and gives us a future that leads us closer to Him.